Civil Case No.

926 is a complaint for forcible entry, where what is at issue is prior possession,
regardless of who has lawful title over the disputed property. 14 Thus, "[t]he only issue in an
action for forcible entry is the physical or material possession of real property, that is,
possession de facto and not possession de jure. The philosophy underlying this remedy is that
irrespective of the actual condition of the title to the property, the party in peaceable quiet
possession shall not be turned out by strong hand, violence or terror." 15 And, a judgment
rendered in a case for recovery of possession is conclusive only on the question of possession
and not on the ownership. It does not in any way bind the title or affect the ownership of the
land or building. 16

G.R. No. L-48050 October 10, 1994

FELICIDAD JAVIER, Petitioner, vs. HON. REGINO T. VERIDIANO II, Presiding Judge,
Branch I, Court of First Instance of Zambales and REINO ROSETE, Respondents.

What is the principle of laches?

Laches is defined as the failure or neglect for an unreasonable and unexplained length
of time, to do thatwhich, by exercising due diligence, could or should have been done
earlier. It is negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time, warranting
a presumption that the party entitled thereto has either abandoned or declined to assert
it. The principle of laches is based on grounds of public policy which requires, for the
peace of society, the discouragement of stale claims. It is principally directed against the
unfairness of permitting an alleged right or claim to be enforced. It concerns itself with
whether or not by reason of long inaction or inexcusable neglect, a person claiming a
right should be barred from asserting the same, because to allow him to do so would be
unjust to the person against whom such right is sought to be enforced.

Action; forcible entry. There is forcible entry or desahucio when one is deprived of physical
possession of land or building by means of force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth. The
basic inquiry centers on who has the prior possession de facto. The plaintiff must prove that he
was in prior possession and that he was deprived thereof.

In the instant case, respondents’ house was constructed in 1983 and they had prior physical
possession until they were deprived thereof by petitioners. To substantiate their claims,
respondents submitted the affidavit, dated September 20, 2002, of Carlos C. Menil and Lolito S.
Bito, who witnessed the demolition of respondents’ house during the latter’s absence. Mr. Menil
and Mr. Bito attested that they saw petitioner Rogelio personally supervising the demolition of
respondents’ house, and that he erected a concrete fence enclosing the area where the house
formerly stood. Petitioners failed to refute the foregoing allegations except with bare denials.

While petitioners hold title to the subject property where the house was located, the sole issue in
forcible entry cases is who had prior possession de facto of the disputed property. In Dy, the
Court held that these are summary proceedings intended to provide an expeditious means of
protecting actual possession or right of possession of property. Title is not involved; that is why it
is a special civil action with a special procedure. Spouses Rogelio F. Lopez and Teotima G.
Lopez vs. Samuel R. Espinosa and Angelita S. Espinosa, G.R. No. 184225, September 4, 2009